No. -----

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Constance F. Russell and DeAndre' Russell, Petitioner pro Se'

V.

State of , ET., AL. Respondent

Submitted

May 12, 2019

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the

Alabama

PETITIONER'S APPENDIX

Constance F. Russell, Petitioner prose' 4882 James Street Huntsville, Alabama 35811 (256) 851-6658 PETITIONER(S) APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX Al, ALABAMA SUPREME COURT, October 12, 2018 ORDER OF DENIAL! "NO OPINION RULING"

APEENDIX 131-134 ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS ORDER OF DENIAL! ON HEARING AND REHEARING, "NO OPINION RULING" ------

APPENDIX Cl-C2 ALABAMA , ORDER TO DENY APPEAL AND ORDER TODENY RULE60(b)3 ------

APPENDIX D1-D2 ALABAMA DISTRICT COURT, ORDER TO DENY RULE60(b)5/6 AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER ------

APPENDIX El-Eli Petitioner's Motion for Court to set-aside the order to dismiss appeal, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) for Misrepresentation of Counsel ------

APPENDIX F148 Petitioner's Motion to Set-Aside the Judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b) 5/6, under an, "INDEPENDENT ACTION" ------

APPENDIX G-1 Copy of Petitioner's letter from Attorney General and 0CC ------

APPENDIX H- Petitioner's Alabama Writ of Certiorari that was presented in petitioner's application for an extension of time to file, No. 18A724, that is already on file with this court. ------IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

October 12, 2018

Ip'flEi

Ex parte Constance F. Russell. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Constance F. Russell v. First Resolution Investment Corporation) (Madison Circuit Court: CV-17-48; Civil Appeals: 2170251).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on October 12, 2018:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Bryan, J. .- Stuart, CJ, and Parker, Main, and Mendheim, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Julia J. Weller, as Clerk of the Supreme Court of Alabama, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of the instrument(s) herewith set out as same appear(s) of record in said Court. Witness my hand this 12th day of October, 2018.

Clerk, Supreme court of Alabama REL: 07/13/2018

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2017-2018

2170251

Constance F. Russell V. First Resolution Investment Corporation. Appeal from Madison Circuit Court (CV-17-48).

PER CURIA-M.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53 (a) (1) and (a) (2) (F), Ala. R. App. P.; Rule 1.16(b), Ala. IL Prof. Cond.; Rule 78, Ala. R. Civ. P.; Johnson v. City of Mobile, 195 So. 3d 903, 921 (Ala. 2015) Jefferson Cty. Comm'n v. Edwards, 32 So. 3d 572, 583 (Ala. 2009); Hale v. Larry Latham Auctioneers, Inc., 607 So. 2d 154, 155 (Ala. 1992) ; Ex parte Diaz, 224 So. 3d 605, 607 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) ; Barnes v. Jayne, 679 So. 2d 1141, 1142 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996); and Richardson v. Richardson, 531 So. 2d 1241, 1242 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988)

All the judges concur. DOCUMENT 25

Ne UA A

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON

FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT CORP, Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) Case No.: CV-2017-000048.00 ) RUSSELL CONSTANCE, ) Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter came before the Court for hearing before a bench trial on October 23, 2017. After considering the filings, applicable case law, and arguments of counsel, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

DONE this 241b day of October, 2017.

Is! JAMES P. SMITH CIRCUIT JUDGE DOCUMENT O

p\ \

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MADISON

FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT) CORP Plaintiff, ) ) V Case No. DV-2005-002189.00 ) RUSSELL CONSTANCE, ) DefendanL )

ORDER

MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND VACAI'E ORDER filed by CONSTANCE RUSSELL is hereby DENTED.

(1) The original default judgment in this cause was entered on December 2, 2003. The Defendant now wishes this Court to set aside a judgment entered over 11 years ago. The Court finds that the motion is not made within reasonable time.

DONE this 25kh day of May, 2017.

is! PATRICIA DUNN DEMOS DISTRICT JUDGE